A Perfect Storm Brewing in Pakistan
Within a matter of days, events on the Afghan border seem to be creating a perfect storm of mistrust and conflict between the United States and Pakistan: The recent US heliborne attack with troops inside Pakistan's tribal area; the report that President George W. Bush had signed off on such attacks in July, allowing US forces to conduct these raids without clearance from Pakistan; the short-term shutting down of the US supply route to Afghanistan by Pakistan, ostensibly for "security reasons"; and finally an unequivocal riposte from Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani that "There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border." Unless good sense prevails, the US-Pakistan alliance may be heading for the rocks in a storm that could rent the tenuous alliance between these two "allies."
There may be good grounds for the US to feel that it has been let down by Pakistan in the past. Pakistan's ambivalent approach to the Afghan Taliban and continuing hidden links to former Afghan Mujahideen commanders, such as Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj, came to be at odds with its partnership with the US against militants in the border region. Coming clean on that score may not have satisfied the US. Hence the Bush signature on unilateral attacks even perhaps as he entertained the new Pakistani prime minister in Washington this July.
Suddenly the old policy of "a wink and a nod" that worked for President Pervez Musharraf and that appeared to be continuing under the new democratically elected Peoples' Party government seems to have been set aside. Kayani's tough statement appears to have widespread public support in Pakistan. The Prime Minister echoed his words. But President Asif Ali Zardari uncharacteristically has been silent. If this portends fissures in the ruling hierarchy then the signs are not good for the balance of power inside Pakistan.
Other dangerous possibilities appear likely in the US-Pakistan relationship. The next time the US physically invades Pakistani territory to take out suspected militants, it may meet the Pakistan army head on. Or it may face a complete a cut-off of war supplies and fuel in Afghanistan via Pakistan. With only two weeks supply of fuel available to its forces inside Afghanistan and no alternative route currently available, the war in Afghanistan may come to a screeching halt. The Bush approach may prove to be yet another example of short-term thinking that damages the longer term objective. The Taliban meanwhile will be applauding from the sidelines.
A major consequence of the US invasion of Pakistan's territory will be the further alienation of the Pakistani public and a serious internal problem for the fledgling civil government that took over from Musharraf's autocracy. The US may think it has considerable leverage over the Pakistani government because of the latter's economic ills and financial straits and its overwhelming reliance on US aid. But it is failing to measure the power of the Pakistani street. Already, a vast majority of people in Pakistan, including inside the army, see the United States with hostile eyes. Anyone in Pakistan seen as aligning with the Americans would lose public favor. And the nationalists and religious extremists will then get a chance to say "we told you so!" and gain the upper hand.
All this is happening as the lame duck Bush presidency is getting ready to pack its bags. But the campaign to succeed Bush is heating up. Cross border US attacks inside Pakistan will distract from the war on terror in the region. They will also divert the campaigns of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama from finding solutions to hurling new rhetorical bombs at each other to prove that each is tougher in the use of military force than the other.
Both Pakistan and the United States need to rethink their actions. Pakistan must prove with actions not just words that it is willing to shed its ties to all militants. The United States must ratchet down the rhetoric and the use of force, especially against an "ally" in this war on terror, a war that will last well into the next president's term and may be beyond. And it must fully equip the Pakistan army to fight a mobile counter insurgency in its borderlands. Otherwise, the US will not only lose an ally in Pakistan but ignite a conflagration inside that huge and nuclear-armed country that will make the war in Afghanistan seem like a Sunday hike in the Hindu Kush.
Shuja Nawaz is the author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within (Oxford University Press 2008). He can be reached at www.shujanawaz.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pakistan should not be hypocritical about sovereignty. They keep complaining about not being able to control the North west badlands and yet are not willing to let anyone else to clear the badlands. The cannot claim sovereignty as these areas have now become the breeding ground for terrorist plots that destabilize the world. Also Pakisan has been for years sponsoring terrorist acts against India, Afghanistan etc and were not to concerned about issues of sovereignty. What is happening in Pakistan now, is that the chickens are coming to roost. Pakistan is reaping what it sowed.!
dear Friends:
It has been 5 years, 50,000 casualties and 5 trillion dollars ago since this "Super Power" invaded a small country with no WMD's, No organized Army, No functional Government, No Cohesive society and no money at its disposal and one which only 12 years before, we had beaten down into the desert and continued to bomb over "No Fly Zones" until our last invasion. Yet, that little country has cash-strapped our Army, and rendered us impotent except for our big guns and tricky technology. But with these, we cannot win the most important battle of warfare, the hearts and minds of the people. So when we talk about Pakistan, Palinize our speech and speak with a bit more "deference and respect." Not because I think Pakistan can whip us in a war; they probably could not. But, we can't whip them either. Pakistan is ungovernable! Period. So, we want to play with this fire, well, Good Luck with that!
Good thinking! When we need comments with a low level critical reasoning skills, we shall call on you, please don't raise your hand until such time. Thank you for your cooperation.
Mr Gina's ghost thanks you.
Does anyone really think that a single problem would be solved by capturing or killing Osama bin Laden ? Come on now ! Think with your brain, not your ego. What if the British had caught or killed George Washington. Would the American Revolution have just folded ? We see bin Laden as a vicious killer of innocents, but there is a large percentage of the world that sees him as a hero who struck a righteous blow against the United States on behalf of oppressed muslims everywhere. Another leader would follow him in short order. We have done NOTHING to change the prevailing equation, quite the opposite. I do not know what the answer is - but what we are doing with our military is NOT working. Forcing our will on the Islamic world only makes us enemies.
Barack's past judgement: "If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including [Osama] bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should," Obama said. "That's just common sense."
And yet, now we see the consequences of going in without approvel.
I think the only way out of this is to put enough troops in Afghanistan, 100,000+, to effectively seal the border with Pakistan. It's clear that we can't risk more incursions, the Pakistani army has started firing on US helicopters, either crossing or approaching their border.
I wonder, aside from the vengeance factor, are we thwarting any terrorist attacks by occupying Afghanistan? So far we've spread the "infection" to Pakistan, which now faces its own internal threats. All of this because we failed to get Osama at Tora Bora.
And as satisfying as that might have been, would it have stopped al Quaeda or the Taliban or any of the other numerous insurgencies we've encouraged? I doubt it. They continue to grow as long as "the Crusaders" occupy Muslim land. That's Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We've already effectively lost in Iraq, which is rapidly evolving into an Iranian ally. That's why the militants are moving to Afghanistan. We might be able to seal Afghanistan.
But Israel will remain as the original, festering sore that will keep this all going until it's resolved. While it's true that Islamic militancy has moved beyond the Israeli-Palestinian issue, nothing will stop until that's resolved. Quite brilliantly, we've set up another "Crusader state" where the original Crusader state was established. We all know what happened to that.
Posting 100,000 troops in Afghanistan will do nothing - the Soviets had three times that number and lost. It took ten years, but they lost. If we believe in freedom, we have to let people be free, even if that means they choose religious enslavement, Taliban style.
HELLO ! bright-star, it's not about a choice of religious enslavement... It *IS* about murder of Americans by religious literalists *GET IT ?*
Well, the Soviets were trying to uproot an indigenous insurgency within Afghanistan, we'd be trying to seal a border. And the US supplied the insurgents with effective, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that nullified Soviet air attacks. We also built them an extensive cave/shelter system, which is now in our hands.
There was substantial support for the new Afghan government, which has been largely turned off because of corruption and our inability to defend people who'd like more freedom than the Taliban would allow. Remember all those guys who had their beards trimmed when we moved in. We can probably also make much more use of the "bribery weapon" to get some help from the Afghan population.
In any case, we don't really have a choice. Letting the Taliban and al Quaeda re-establish themselves in Afghanistan would be a more effective morale boost and recruiting tool for them than even our stupid invasion of Iraq. Typically, when insurgencies are bottled up, they turn into bandits, and extinguish their political appeal. Call it the "Pancho Villa" effect.
That's the best we can hope for in Afghanistan.
Well, the Soviets were trying to uproot an indigenous insurgency within Afghanistan, we'd be trying to seal a border. And the US supplied the insurgents with effective, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that nullified Soviet air attacks. We also built them an extensive cave/shelter system, which is now in our hands.
There was substantial support for the new Afghan government, which has been largely turned off because of corruption and our inability to defend people who'd like more freedom than the Taliban would allow. Remember all those guys who had their beards trimmed when we moved in. We can probably also make much more use of the "bribery weapon" to get some help from the Afghan population. In any case, we don't really have a choice.
Letting the Taliban and al Quaeda re-establish themselves in Afghanistan would be a more effective morale boost and recruiting tool for them than even our stupid invasion of Iraq. Typically, when insurgencies are bottled up, they turn into bandits, and extinguish their political appeal. Call it the "Pancho Villa" effect. That's the best we can hope for in Afghanistan.
Fully equip the army of Pakistan? In case you haven't yet figured it out, the army of Pakistan is on the side of the terrorist, as is the ISI. Befor this is over you will probably see a civil war in Pakistan with half of the army fighting on the side of the Taliban against U.S. forces. Things are going to get really ugly in this world befor they get any better. And every damn bit of this mess can be layed at the foot of George Bush and the republican agenda.
The sad part about our relationship with Pakistan is that it will NOT be changing no matter which one of the candidates gets the presidency. Barack Obama originally talked about going into Pakistan, like it was some sort of Banana Republic, to bring back bin Laden and the "terrorists", then supposedly al Qaeda. John McCain wants to give more military hardware to Pakistan to fight the terrorists. It will be more of standing with "our ally, (not Mushareff) in the war against terrorism." We are screwed no matter which one of them wins. And it is probably true that there will be a third little war with Pakistan while we wait for the one with Iran. Pakistan of course has the nuclear weapons that are denied Iran, but that probably won't be case for long.
To whom it may concern especially among terrorist and their supporters,
President Obama and Vice President Biden will not tolerate aid and comfort of those that seek to harm America and its People. Make no friggin mistake about the resolve of these two American leaders, to do so would be a grave error. Most sincerely yours.
Now that will really have the Taliban in hysterics.
A real bright-star eh? Is this your idea of GOP "Country First* Troll boy?
In your leader you say: The next time the US physically invades Pakistani territory to take out suspected militants, it may meet the Pakistan army head on.
It now has if this article from todays BBC is correct.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm
Cromwell
Am I wrong on this...but......didn't our esteemed prez give Pakistan NucUlur capabilities recently??
No, they've had them for quite a long time. They started in 1972, built weapons in the mid-80s,but didn't test any until 1998, after India tested two nuclear devices.
This has been coming for a long time. When it was announced (a small blip) in the news several years ago that Musharraf had signed an agreement with warlords in the mountains giving them semi-autonomy, I knew we were in for some rough times. Those border regions belong to the Taliban and their sympathizers. That was the day that I knew that Musharaf was teetering, and the day I started worrying about nukes falling into the hands of al Qaeda and Taliban.
Something has to be done to secure those nukes, and I suspect just making unannounced raids into the sovereign territory of Pakistan is NOT the smartest way to approach that.
Dear Mr. Nawaz,
Thank you for a well reasoned and eloquently expressed essay/post. Now they us put into place one fact of import you've failed to mention, while I said this tongue and cheek (sort of), Our God is greater than the god of our enemies, but more important, our sociopaths are greater also, but of greatest importance, our military has more conventional power than it is possible for the human mind to imagine, and our sociopaths will use that power.
That said, I would not be saber rattling with rattlesnakes (don't tread on me) best to clean ones own house if ya don't want the house cleaning service, if ya catch my drift, seems that there are tough choices to made, Pakistan will have to pick *one*? Now bet me that I'm not telling a great truth? It is not wise to come to a gun fight with a sling-shots and rocks.
I sure hope reason will prevail and friendship will endure. Agape.
Evidence of American arrogance and bullying. Do things my way or I invade. The things of import that you forgot were American arrogance in leaving Afghanistan for Iraq, allying with a state that had ties to 9/11 and for allowing Pakistan to become a nuclear nation.
Regards
AH
And who was it that drew first blood on 9.11.01 eh? Speaking to arrogance! Give me a break, will ya please.
Don't know if I would call our leaders sociopaths, but whatever gets you through the night. Point is, don't waste our time with your punditry. We have survived as a country and super power by taking care of our people and our allies. The petty ramblings of third world facists really aren't relevant until they affect our foreign policy. Then the tools of all sovereign nations are available to us as well.
ROTF, What is this "WE" Bu$hshit? You got a mouse in your pocket Troll?
The author surely exaggerates when he suggests the US forces may be met head on by the Pakistanis'. If Pakistan were able to control its border territory enough to mobilize a major force on the border to greet us, then we'd hardly have to go in there ourselves, would we?
Still, the author has a point. This civilian government in Pakistan is too important to let fail (so it's like Fannie Mae and Bear Stearns, but not like Lehman Brothers). We must develop a true alliance and build trust. We can help them develop effective counter-insurgency capabilities. Then we can utilize their forces to help them establish control over their territory and rout the unwelcome, destabilizing Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. That's the right way to do it: unauthorized incursions of dubious legal merit are generally not the way to go, except in a desperate situation.
Obama and McCain should politely ask Bush to take it easy. Unless he's got actual intel on the location of Osama himself.
It's one thing to mass troops on the border to confront an invasion, it's quite another thing to control the territory inside that border, especially if the vast majority of the people inside the border are opposed to the government behind the army. Look at all the trouble we've had in Iraq. We failed to control Iraq with our army for years (and arguably still are failing) but was there ever a doubt that if Iran invaded we could have met them head on?
I am concerned about Pakistan, largely because I felt early on that Musharraf was ineffective; he seemed to spend more time busting the heads of legitimate, democratically-oriented opponents and protecting his power base than going after religious militants with whom his military and intelligence services had links to from the 1980's onward.
It came to a head when Musharraf started stuffing lawyers into police vans and demonstrating to the Pakistani people that trying to change the government by the ballot box would only get you a sore head and a night in jail. That sort of thing merely increases the allure of armed resistance, and that is primarily carried out by religious militants. In short, our support of Musharraf's strongman tactics played right into alienating the general populace towards more extremist views.
Now once again, this time directly, we are undermining a fragile new government in the eyes of their own people, and playing, once again, into the hands of the extremist elements of Pakistan. While I can understand that there is a limited strategic use in undertaking raids into Pakistan's tribal areas, I think that we are acting without reference to the domestic situation inside Pakistan and that it will bite us in the butt in the next few years.
In short: I think we need to work with this new government and be patient. Above all, be less overtly involved in matters. The less we are seen, the less galvanized the extremists are.
The Administration is hell-bent on catching Bin Laden, so it won't matter what anybody thinks. Bush needs this to vindicate himself.
The final results matter not at all. If he leaves our military in a shambles, our country mired in depression, and Afghanistan's people under the thumb of the Taliban, so be it. He thinks only in political terms and never gives a thought to governing.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
